UK troops have been taking a pummelling in Afghanistan in the last few months. 2009 has been the worst year of the conflict for the UK army. 95 soldiers killed in action, many seriously wounded.

As ever, when I hear raw numbers, I feel both appalled and confused. More questions arise. Why is the UK army suffering so much? How are we faring compared to the other armies there? Are we taking a disproportionate amount of casualties? If so, why?

In an effort to find out, I used information on British dead and wounded archived on the Datablog as a starting point.

British Troop Figures

If you look at the raw numbers above, it's unarguable. 2009 is the worst year on record for troops in Afghanistan. We're getting pummeled.

But, if the numbers are proportional the number of troops deployed each year, the picture shifts.

Public Domain

In 2006 there were around 3,300 British troops in the arena. Today, in 2009, there are around 9000 on the ground - nearly 3 times more. The worst year is actually, marginally, 2006. Scant consolation to the troops and families.

But, if seriously wounded troops are included in the figures, a very grim picture emerges.

Improvised Explosive Devices now account for over two-thirds of coalition forces deaths.

UK, US and Canadian Figures

Still, why are British troops in particular getting so hammered? How are they doing compared to other forces in the arena?On the surface, it seems the US army is taking the bulk of the casualties in the war.

Public Domain

However, again, if the figures are re-worked as a proportion of troops deployed by each country, the picture changes.

Public Domain

Canadian forces are actually suffering the most. They're mostly deployed in the southern Kandahar, which adjoins the province of Helmand, where the bulk of British troops are posted. Both are Taliban strongholds.And, if wounded soldiers are factored in, a shocking picture emerges.

Info is beautiful 07 Photograph: Public Domain

This is probably why the Canadian government is not releasing its figures for wounded soldiers (It took a leak to the Canadian Press news agency to get the figures). (Important: these figures include all wounded, not just seriously wounded. The Canadian figures for 2009 are estimates. As ever you can check my figures and sources in this Google spreadsheet.)

All armies in Afghanistan

How do all these figures stack up compared to the other coalition forces taking part in NATO operations in Afghanistan?

Though Germany, France and Italy have sent sizeable battalions to Afghanistan, their relative contribution is much lower than Poland, Estonia and others.

Civilians

Caught in the midst of this war are the people of Afghanistan. Naturally, there's a lot of reporting of troop fatalities, but what about the civilians?These are the latest figures from UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan.

Info is beautiful 11 Photograph: Public Domain

Suicide bombs and IEDs account for the majority of deaths caused by anti-government forces.Night time air strikes account for many deaths caused by coalition forces.Coalition-caused civilian deaths are much lower this year. This may be because the US has introduced new rules of engagement. Or perhaps they have reduced night time air strikes? It's not clear. Regardless, if you include Afghan army and police fatalities, total civilian deaths since 2006 total at least 9200.